HALA + Wallingford on KUOW

If KUOW isn’t part of your morning diet, you may be unfamiliar with a series called Region of Boom which has been investigating issues related to our city’s explosive growth. This month, Region of Boom will air a series of pieces exploring the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) about which so much has been written here on Wallyhood. (So much, in fact, that the site has apparently auto-organized an archive just for HALA stories.) This simple fact would not, ordinarily, be reason to write a post, but this Region of Boom HALA series will examine how HALA might work and is being received in Yesler Terrace, the Central District and our neighborhood.

If you have been following the HALA debate, you know that the HALA committee proposed several dozen strategies for improving affordability, but, according to the Region of Boom HALA website, the series will focus on just four:

Build lots of housing.

Bring poor and middle income people into wealthy neighborhoods [that’s essentially what would happen in Wallingford, the related audio says].

Bring middle income people into traditionally poor neighborhoods.

Help strengthen the communities that are already in those places.

And the website says this:

The neighborhood of Wallingford especially can be seen as a battleground between homeowners and renters, or wealthy homeowners trying to keep out normal folks. But, according to one Wallingford homeowner McNichols [KUOW’s Region of Boom reporter] interviewed, that idea is “bull#$%^.”

There’s no listing of when these pieces will air, but there is already some interesting audio available on their website, and I suspect the remaining segments will appear there, as well.

a battleground?? Seriously/? People speak to me on the street, sidewalks.. etc. I am a lowly rentor. I pick up litter in front of our apt building and called police re squatters across street.. etc.

hayduke

Yep, I have friends and neighbors who rent in the neighborhood, as well as members of WCC who are renters. All of whom are very concerned about what HALA will do to them.

So I’d like to be able to say that I don’t understand why there’s this drive to create this impression that there’s some huge wedge between homeowners and renters and neighborhoods like Wallingford. But then you look at the motiv s if the people who are trying to divide us, from the mayor on down, and it all makes sense.

TJ

The wedge between Wallingford homeowners and current Wallingford renters are disappearing, because the ones that need cheap housing are already priced out of Wallingford. It’s kind of like there are no wedge between African Americans and newcomers in Central anymore, because African Americans are already all forced to move to Kent.

Right now in Wallingford you got mostly million dollar house owners and $2500 a month renters, both pretty well-off people that are scheming to shut the neighborhood out for poorer people.

cathy wonderful

I am not scheming to do anything but I would love ideas ot get the homeless person who rotates sitting in front yards, sidewalks and in front of businesses 2 blocks from my apt to live somewhere else. It is scary to walk by him on sidewalk on my way somewhere.

TJ

I don’t know you, but requiring a standard of living that’d be pricy to achieve is scheming to keep the poorer people out. That is the case of most anti-HALA organizations, and that represents one side of this battle.
There have always been some homeless population around here, but the situation was way way better just a couple of years ago when the housing price was half of what it is today. Soooo…..are homeowners willing to let go the wealth gain of the past five years?

Donn

Here’s one of the misconceptions that’s the hardest to account for, that the high rents here are due to homeowners clinging to their “wealth gain.”

You would like to see Wallingford full of apartment buildings, from one end to the other, right? That would mean each homeowner sells their lot, and the houses torn down. Where is the homeowner’s wealth now? In the bank – before it was imaginary, now it’s real! What they’re really letting go of, is big trees, beautiful old houses from a bygone era, neighbors who didn’t just get off the bus from San Francisco, etc. Is that what you meant by “wealth”?

TJ

I don’t want apartments end to end. I want half of Wallingford becoming parks and the other half to be condos. You can fit 100 families in the space of 10 families that way, and have way way way more trees.

What “beautiful old house from a bygone era” are you talking about? Seattle is a city with extremely short history and old houses in Wallingford aren’t beautiful. This is no Kyoto.

hayduke

“I want half of Wallingford becoming parks and the other half to be condos.”

And there you have it, folks. The YIMBY agenda of not just eliminating SF zoning, but eliminating SF houses, period. At least TJ is more up front about it than the rest, I give him credit for that.

TJ

I surely don’t represent any other people. I am also not against single-family zoning, just not in Wallingford. There would be no need to convert single-family houses in Monroe to condos.

Song Woman

Yeah, & that will work really well for people who work in downtown Seattle & live in Monroe–because their time is worth nothing! lol. So glad I sold & moved! (Tho I do still have a dog in the fight)

Berta

You don’t have to go very far north of us to Crown Hill/Greenwood neighborhood to find 5 to 6,000 square foot lots, although no sidewalks. Why aren’t these large lot neighborhoods not filling up with densifiers? I suggest that it’s because it’s a neighborhood that has traditionally been low income, lower income than Wallingford used to be and doesn’t have even partial views of the water. Yet Greenwood has a Rapid Ride bus and is not that far from Aurora’s RR. You could probably get downtown (without congestion) in 15-20 minutes. So what gives? People prefer Wallingford, I suspect, because of the way it has been preserved over the years by homeowners, responsible landlords and all the neighborhood contributions made by the Wallingford Community Council. It seems some newcomers, especially those who know nothing about this history, feel that they should come in and dictate how the neighborhood should meet their standards. Efficiency is not the only standard for human happiness, and I doubt most people would say that it contributes significantly to their overall well-being or that of their neighbors, especially our homeless neighbors.

snelsen

TJ, you are referring to my HOME, which I have lived in for 26 years. No single family zoning in Wallingford? Where shall I go?
I don’t want to be converted. I love my home, my neighbors and my friends.

hayduke

“Where shall I go?
I don’t want to be converted. I love my home, my neighbors and my friends.”

Not to worry, snelsen, TJ has plans for you. Once him and his YIMBY friends finally convince the city to demolish your home for the greater good, TJ has said all of you who used to live on the same block would be assigned the same floor, and that way we can still all be together.”

snelsen

well then, nothing to be concerned about, right? I hope there is an elevator.

Setting aside the prospect of some sort of eminent domain driven reconstruction of Wallingford (which I think is about as likely in our lifetimes as the sun rising in the west) changing the zoning does not change anyone’s house …unless and until anyone descides to selll it (and even then it may not if that’s what the buyer wants) or subdivide it.

snelsen

Now there’s a reasonable response.

TJ

What do you really care? Neighbors and friends or a specific style of building to live in? I personally don’t see why single family housing is that important. Home is where heart is, and that includes neighbors and friends but not the physical house itself.

Baby llama drama

TJ, you said you would like to see the houses gone, replaced by condos. If you’re against SFH, why are you living in Wallingford? Pretty much everyone who bought his/her home here looked around Seattle and said “This is where I want to live. I like this.” If you want to live in a dense condo area, why not move downtown? It sounds right up your alley.
You talk about penalizing those whose property values have increased. When peoples’ home values take a dive (what goes up must come down), are you going to step to compensate them for that loss? About ten years ago, real estate prices were tanking bigly. I don’t recall any talk about helping home owners out then.

TJ

I live in Wallingford because of its location. I always live close to work, and I can walk to work. Considering how close Wallingford is to so many jobs is the main reason I support building up here. I wouldn’t support density increase in Monroe, and I don’t understand why people who are so in love with single family houses can’t just move to suburbs. There are tons of places with big single family houses, but there are very limited land that has the convenience of Wallingford.

And yes, I do think it’d be better if the general folks can be shielded from the up and downs of real estate prices. I do not think it’s fair for people living in Detroit and Las Vegas seeing their personal wealth suffer due to forces they can’t understand or control.

Baby llama drama

U District is densifying nicely. Lots of high-rise apartments there and even more in the pipeline.
As some have pointed out, there are loads of lots along Aurora that could be developed and they’re on a major transit route at least, unlike us. Seen lots of empty lots and dumpy areas in the Frelard area that could be built upon, too.
Point is, it seems silly to tear down homes here and change the whole neighborhood character when there are so many other choices nearby that make more sense and it would vastly improve those areas, and those areas do need a lot of improvement!

TJ

Aurora is obviously not as good as East Wallingford, where I live, as a candidate for zoning up. East Wallinford would be within 15 minutes walk to a lightrail station, and right next to i5. Aurora is much further from both i5 and the lightrail. Another reason why it makes more sense to tear down here than Aurora: housing around Aurora is still much cheaper than here. Why are we advocating tearing down houses for the poorer? Also in which way isn’t Wallingford needing improvement? It’s mostly old and not really good houses and some drive-in stores like CVS, Dick’s, and Ezell’s. For such a prime location that’s not exactly great character.

TJ

By the way, it’s a horrible idea to advocate build up in Frelard instead of Wallingford. Ballard people are already clogging up Wallingford to go access I5. We should build up closer to I5, as opposed to have more people needing to travel through Wallingford to I5.

Same idea for lightrail. The rules can be easy: determine density by walking distance to the stations. Somewhere around Dick’s would have a guaranteed 30 minute commute to downtown with walk plus lightrail, regardless of traffic. Nowhere on Aurora can that be achieved. So we should have downtown walkers living around Dick’s ( and U District obviously), as opposed to Aurora or Frelard. All those Amazon workers currently living on Stone Way apartments actually got the ideas right: short bus commute and occasionally they can bike. That’s the way to grow Seattle.

hayduke

“We should build up closer to I5”

Ok TJ, now you’ve got me flummoxed. I thought urbanists were always preaching about Transit Orientated Development? But you want to build closer to an interstate highway?

As for Aurora, hello, Bus Rapid Transit? They dedicated a whole lane to downtown for “Bus Only.” Unless you’re actually living downtown, it’s hard to beat that commute time. Plus, Aurora is a craphole. Sure, it’s our craphole, with it’s unique characteristics and character, if you will. But it’s still a craphole, and it generates crime that spreads to adjoining neighborhoods. It would be an improvement to see development there, which is why I’ve advocated upzoning it. Keep it on Aurora, and you’d have little to no opposition to it. And if the city’s going to take the MHA fees that developers will pay so they can build market rate housing in more desirable areas, doesn’t it make sense for the city to build it’s affordable housing on strips like Aurora, where land values are a lot less?

And just think, a few years from now, Aurora will become desirable real estate too. And then you can bellyache about the “undeserved” wealth gain of homeowners there.

Baby llama drama

Exactly! You can build a lot more housing for the money in those places, as opposed to tearing down high-priced homes in high-priced locations, and that area (Aurora) would benefit as a result!
I suppose some areas of East Wallingford would be ok, but go far east enough and then you’re getting into the U District area, which is where I advocate up zoning in the first place. And it’s by the light-rail!

hayduke

Of course, the NIMBY’s would argue it’s not “fair” or “equitable” that some people would live on Aurora. Nevermind that millions of people in our country live in far less desirable environments, and plenty of people have already chosen to live on Aurora with no assistance from the city or the taxpayers.

TJ

My vision of fair is pretty simple: I’d like to have the line cooks at Ezell’s and Dick’s be able to live within walking distance to their work. I think that’s achievable by building more Apodments around. Don’t we all love talking about caring for people around us? What I see is most anti-HALA guys are trying very hard to keep the housing stock low and price high, therefore the neighbors they claim to love can be limited to people above certain income.

hayduke

“My vision of fair is pretty simple…”

Well that’s your problem right there. You’re trying to simplify a very complicated issue that can’t be simplified. Plus, apparently you didn’t get the memo when your parents did what all parents do and tell their children that life isn’t fair.

But let’s pretend, if just for a moment. Build your Apodments on Aurora where the land is already cheap while being close into the city and on a BRT line. Your Dick’s and Ezell’s workers can either walk down 45th or hop on the #44.

Boom, problem solved. And it wasn’t even complicated.

TJ

Of course life is not fair, and I’d like to make if more fair as opposed to make it less fair. And why would I want to have a vision that would fit your world view? It’s not like you are making attempt to make your vision fit mine.

TJ

High-priced locations means more desirable locations, therefore we should increase the supply of housing in those locations. It’s not that hard to see. All around Puget Sound the only real cheap places are very far from the city, and it’s not like we’d then build houses there and chase all the poor to those places. Or maybe that’s what we are doing?

Baby llama drama

High-priced locations means high-priced homes. If we want lower-priced homes, we have to build where the property value is lower. There are dirt-cheap land and homes available, just not in Manhattan, SF, or Seattle.
If we’re going to invest in affordable housing, wouldn’t we get more bang for the buck building it where the costs are lower?

hayduke

But you see, bld, it’s not really about creating affordable housing, that’s just a front. It’s about sticking it to those evil white privileged racist single-family homeowners. Follow them on their blogs long enough and that becomes very clear.

Baby llama drama

Well, I hope not.
The developers always win. I’m not clear on how we’re going to get those developers to build this affordable housing in Wallingford at a loss, so they’ll likely just “contribute” to the city fund and then that affordable housing will get built along Aurora regardless!

TJ

What do you mean developers always win? Developers in cities like San Francisco and Seattle have not been winning. The richer legacy residents and the rich newcomers are winning, and successfully forcing the poorer people out.

TJ

San Francisco is not New York. There were studies done showing if San Francisco is built like Paris, five-storied tall condo everywhere, the housing price in San Francisco would have been affordable.

Seattle would be the same. If we have higher density, the housing price would have been affordable. The problem is the demand increased so fast and the build up didn’t catch up.

Baby llama drama

Why is Frelard bad? It’s close to Aurora, which has BRT.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

Speaking as a long time Fremont resident (since 1972) and Frelard kind of (Baker NW since 1992): Aurora has significant problems as a transit corridor for people in Fremont.

There are no transit lanes on the Aurora Bridge; that lane starts south of the first Q.A. exit at south end of bridge. Then the transit lane disappears or often gets blocked approaching Denny exit.

There are no rapid ride stops south of 46th, so it does not effectively serve lower Fremont or the mass of new apartments around 40th and Stone and anywhere in lower Fremont.

The buses that serve East Fremont below mid 40s (#26 and 28 at Aurora and 38th; #62 from downtown Fremont to downtown or 31/32 if you’re going to UW or Magnolia) are often jammed during rush hour. Same with #5 coming down from Phinney to Aurora, and #40 from Ballard through downtown Fremont—totally packed to or from SLU for long rush hours.

As for development on Aurora, many in Fremont support the idea, but that won’t improve the transit or access issues. East side of Aurora (East Fremont) is particularly problematic–it’s an island of residential with difficult or inhospitable pedestrian access in all four directions. Lots of nice tree canopied streets, but no public open space. The city wants to up zone all SF in the area out of existence, some blocks up to LR3! With a weakened design review program. And no impact fees. The quality of life impacts are going to be horrendous.

TJ

And people in those areas are gonna be clogging both the Wallingford streets and the bus lines to light rail stations! We should build up East Wallingford before we build up those places.

Baby llama drama

The city really is not keeping up with our transit needs. They’ve cut way back on bus service and raised the fares at a time when need for it has gone through the roof. I think that is reprehensible and the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Baby llama drama

“I personally don’t see why single family housing is that important.”
It’s the preferred housing for most people. There’s a lot to be said for not hearing your neighbors stomp on your ceiling or their blaring television next door, let alone their plumbing leak that floods your unit.

Song Woman

I already did this, for more than 2 decades. High density = no parking, many loud parties & fights at 3 am. Did it. Done. Sold & left the state– but only very recently. And I care what happens to my friends & fam.

margie74

I was in Kyoto last September, and some of it is beautiful – the park in Gion, the temples – the old stuff, and the area out toward the big bamboo forest. A lot of the city, the newer, probably post earthquake areas, is absolutely unremarkable, mundane, industrial bleah. I liked Kyoto a lot and will go back as soon as possible, but most of it is less attractive than our tree lined streets in Wallingford. I wish I had the time to post some of my Kyoto photos.

cathy wonderful

I rent. I am not scheming anything. I prefer to nto be scared when I walk to store or bus. My guess is tha tproperty owners do nto wan tto be scared either. I may not be right.

Susanna

There is this dialogue that equates HALA to affordable housing as in HALA is the only solution and if you are against HALA you are against affordable housing. Even though there are no examples of a HALA-type plan working in any other city to make that place more affordable. It’s good marketing, if you ask me.

HALA is NOT the only solution to affordable housing. I have zero confidence that HALA will result in a more affordable or livable Wallingford. Here are some other ideas for affordable housing that I do support:

I have zero confidence that HALA would be enough also. It’s just much much better than status quo. If it’s even possible, I’m much more for a Wallingford total rebuild.

Susanna

“If it’s even possible, I’m much more for a Wallingford total rebuild.”

That’s very insensitive to the people who have built their lives here.

snelsen

yes, it was insensitive. But it is an opinion,

snelsen

I do not want my home rebuilt. It is my HOME!

snelsen

Thank you, Susanna.

cathy wonderful

There are some low cost apartments to rent aroun dhere. I asked in another comment about changing the regulations to allow basement and garage apartments.

Berta

TJ: ” Soooo…..are homeowners willing to let go the wealth gain of the past five years?”

Yes, there are many of us who consider our neighbors and community of more value than a $500K increase in home value. This only makes our taxes more unaffordable than ever. I already pay 25% of my gross income on property taxes alone.

disqus_XkAiTLVaxe

Why are people who are not wealthy but bought their property years ago as we did are now being called out as “greedy” and wanting to keep out the poor people. It’s not our fault the prices have skyrocketed and are at a premium, no one is shutting anybody out, it’s just a fact that when you have a influx of people moving here that are being paid a high salary and came from selling their houses in califonia with money in their pockets, also 25% of all real estate is being bought by foreign investors, we should be considering a tax like British Columbia implemented on foreign buyers

TJ

Surely this is not about assigning blames. It’s just a fact that there is no reason somebody who moved here earlier would by default have more say. Otherwise we’d need to find out what tribes used to live here and asked for their ideas. African Americans who used to live in Central obviously had no say on what happened to their neighborhoods.

If you don’t like the “greedy” label, how about the “entitlement” label?

And if your solution only includes money out of other people’s pocket and changes in other people’s life, maybe that’s kind of selfish?

disqus_XkAiTLVaxe

How is taxing foreign investors who have zero interest in our city’s culture or being a part of our community being selfish??? they are a huge part in pushing out other middle class families, I’ve had many friends, who are regular people with not super high paying jobs who just happened to get in the real estate game earlier and have the ability to move be outbid by someone who has never even been to Seattle but had cash in pocket, I can tell you if I ever sell I will absolutely make sure that I’m selling to people who will be part of the fabric of Wallingford, even if it’s a smaller bid than a foreign investor or agent who would want to flip the house, etc. and not have it be their primary residence, I’m all for including mandatory low-income apartments in new construction of apt buildings, looking at all the insane amount of apartments that have gone up in Ballard they should have absolutely included low income housing options and that was a lost opportunity, we should be sure to do the same here with new apt buildings.

TJ

It’s selfish because everybody currently living here, no matter coming here early or late, are contributing to the housing problem. We should all own it, as opposed to just keep putting the bill on other people’s tab. People always try to come up with solutions like that, and that IS selfish.

What is the culture of the city anyway? Wallingford doesn’t have a culture. Ballard got a culture. Fremont got somewhat of a culture. Capitol Hill used to have a culture but now that’s mostly gone.

Poorer people who bought into the neighborhood cheap should be considered together as poorer people who couldn’t move in the neighborhood now, as opposed to be considered having seniority and priority. If it’s really about community and the people, then we should all been fine tearing down all of our single houses together and build new condos. We just need to ensure all people who used to live on the same block would be assigned the same floor, and that way we can still all be together. In the mean time, in the same footprint we’d be able to fit in ten times more similar communities.

hayduke

“…we should all been fine tearing down all of our single houses together and build new condos. We just need to ensure all people who used to live on the same block would be assigned the same floor,…”

And just who would do the “assigning,” comrade? SMH

TJ

Of course you get compensation. It’s pretty normal for these type of project to go this way: ten houses tore down to develop a hundred unites, and then the original ten owners get three units back each.

And the assigning part can be easily down also: just develop a rule on how the owners get to pick the three units they got, and if people really all like each other that much they’d be naturally picking closed to each other.

hayduke

And if homeowners happen to like living here and don’t want to sell, or think the city’s offer isn’t high enough, what then?

anotherneighborhoodactivist

“the original ten owners get three units back each”

Sure, just like Yesler Terrace. I don’t know what fantasy place you’re in, but it’s not present day Seattle or U.S.

TJ

Actually that’d be my point. I think all these people who claim to love neighbors don’t love their neighbors that much are just using it as excuses to stop development. Once what’s done is done, people are still themselves and self-interest surely outweigh any neighborhood love.

Baby llama drama

Huh? Wallingford is desirable because people like it the way it is. People don’t like a small craftsman next door being torn down and replaced with a mc-mansion with no yard any more than they like a high rise going up next door or a gas station built next door. There’s just a certain expectation. Judging by the high prices, Wallingford is very popular in its current state. If you tear it all down to replace it all with high rise condos and apartments, well, you might as well just live downtown or in the U District!
I am having a hard time understanding why you think that people who sacrificed and chose to live here would just voluntarily give it all up to change the neighborhood into some place else.

TJ

Only some people like Wallingford because of what you said. Why do you think that’s what everybody wants? Why would people live in those condos built on Stone Way? Look closer: smaller craftsman houses can be found cheap else where, but Wallingford houses are universally expensive, be it townhouses or condos or small craftsman houses or big houses. Are you sure it’s the smaller craftsman houses that people want?

I choose to live here because of location. My job is in Wallingford not downtown.

Baby llama drama

That’s like taking away someone’s new Mercedes and giving them back 3 Volkswagen Beetles and telling them that it’s for their own good and so that 3 other people can have a Volkswagen Beetle, too.
People generally don’t mind paying taxes that go towards helping out the poorest and most vulnerable. Lots of people even donate to charity and volunteer. But when you take away their belongings that they worked for to redistribute them for the “greater good,” most people aren’t going to like that.

TJ

I am not saying it’s for people’s own good. I am telling the rich people of Wallingford to sacrifice a bit for the benefit for the poorer people in general. I am fully aware that most of the “liberals” in Wallingford are only willing to pay some money to have the problems resolved elsewhere as opposed to any other type of sacrifices. You are just describing to me what conservative Americans typically think. I am just hoping some of us are aspiring to be more than that and stop acting like the conservative stereotypes. Really the words used to defend anti-HALA positions are no different from rural communities anti-Latino sentiments. “Don’t come in here to change our life style!”

Baby llama drama

I’m a little confused. You had said you wanted to raze the SFHs of Wallingford to replace them with condos and park space. In exchange, the SFH owners would get a condo or two in return for their lost home.
Now we’re talking about chasing out Latinos?
And who gets to decide who are the “rich” people of Wallingford? Does just being a homeowner qualify one as “rich?” I think you’ll find that many home owners are not rich and there are many renters who are.

hayduke

TJ, it’s not just the anti HALA folks who say something along the lines of, “Don’t come in here to change our life style!” Pretty much everyone who’s not some sort of social justice activist feels the same way, regardless of their race income religious or political beliefs, etc. The desire to be left the hell alone and not have a bunch of do-gooders butting their noses into their business, telling them how they should live their lives and what they should sacrifice for others is a universal human trait. It is simply human nature, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Gen McCoy

TJ: ” am fully aware that most of the “liberals” in Wallingford are only
willing to pay some money to have the problems resolved elsewhere as
opposed to any other type of sacrifices.” Again, how could you possibly know this? Your baseless comments are completely unconvincing.

Berta

TJ: “Wallingford doesn’t have a culture.” Apparently, you haven’t lived here long enough to recognize it. Most of your opinions are self-serving claims with no evidence to back them. You should try to inform yourself if you expect any one to believe you.

TJ

Tell me what that culture is, then you can claim there is something I don’t know. Wallingford surely never had cultural distinctions like Capitol Hill once did, and that Capitol Hill culture is mostly gone now due to not having enough housing stock to keep the poorer folks who formed the culture there to maintain it. Wallingford nowadays are gradually transition into a place of millionaires, and surely whatever culture you have in mind is being lost not because of zoning up, but because lack of zoning up leading to net loss of middle class people.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

You’re perspective is so oblivious to Seattle’s urban development history, and political economics generally, it is difficult for me to engage with you. Are you not aware of how insensitive and insulting you sound?

Every community of people has a “culture” by definition. I’m not sure what Capitol Hill culture (or community) you’re referring to as “gone,” but it’s clear that the African American community (known as the Central District) is now largely gone because it was displace due to gentrification. Read Quintard Taylor, then Henry McGee. The same can be said for the counter-cultural, high percentage non-straight (gay?) community on Capitol Hill. When money (capital) moves in, the poor, the left, and most artists generally get pushed out.

And you have the audacity to say that up zoning has nothing to do with that displacement? Up zoning has everything to do with it.

TJ

By the way, I am pretty sure you are a bleeding heart liberal on most topics. Be careful about the “neighborhood culture” arguments, because that’s the generic belief of nativists everywhere trying to block Latinos from integrating into their white communities. Just check out the recent struggles between cultures in Burien.

hayduke

Are the POC who lived in the CD “nativists” when they mourn the loss of their neighborhood culture to those “priveledged”white millenials?

TJ

Of course they are. Just that they are most poor renters as opposed rich home owners, so they simply have to move away. As most processes in the US, the richer you are the more protection you got. If it’s “culture” you guys care about, then you should have done more for the central guys, and you guys should support the idea of those communities who try to chase out Latinos. I don’t think that’s what you guys are.

hayduke

What communities try to chase out Latinos?

Gen McCoy

TJ: “I don’t think that’s what you guys are.” How could you possibly know what Wallingford residents do and have done for minorities over the years? Again, do your homework.

Gen McCoy

TJ: You’re the one who used the word ‘culture.’ Perhaps ‘character’ would be a better word. Look around at the public art that hasn’t yet been destroyed by developers. Consider especially the WCC, if you want to get an idea of Wallingford’s character and culture. And learn something about its history of community organizations and projects.

TJ

I know this place was Native American land, and I can only tell that by seeing some tribal fishermen on Lake Union.

I know THAT culture is mostly destroyed, and what you called “culture” is…..well, what you want to call culture but not me. I know what Wallingford residents have done for minorities or resolving social issues: not much by my standard. You only want me to do research because your standard is pretty low, and you are surprised that I didn’t detect that low level of distribution.

And there are many things that Seattle doesn’t even try to fix, like the huge disparity among public schools. How about banning individual school fundraising with everybody going to a shared district fund? You know what would happen with that? People going to private schools instead, because richer northern Seattle neighborhoods don’t want to share with the poorer southern neighbors!

hayduke

TJ, what is this obsession of yours with Seattle being Native American land? The city was settled 150 years ago, let it go man, let it go. And frankly, the whole Noble Savage thing that progressives like to parrot is getting old. It’s not like different tribes didn’t take each other’s territory, not to mention enslave and brutalize each other.

Besides, I could argue that if it was wrong to come in 150 years ago and tell the locals how it’s gonna be, then it’s wrong today, as well.

TJ

If you can let go of what Wallingford was like 20 years ago, I can let go of all these Native American talk. You really don’t realize that point? I am not talking about Noble Savage at all. I am being passive aggressive with people’s self-importance and entitlement from being in the neighborhood just a couple years more than others.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

I don’t care for hayduke’s attitude in this new exchange; calling out tribal behavior pre-contact as if it somehow justifies the loss of most aboriginal title is offensive. On the other hand TJ’s projection of entitlement onto the current community is worse. Your dismissiveness toward the work (“not much by my standard”) of many area residents (including myself) over many years supporting and helping empower disadvantaged and disempowered people and communities is really insulting.

And, fyi, the Tribes around the Salish Sea are very much alive and politically active, and they have been rebuilding considerable economic and political power over the past few decades.

Imperialism comes in varying degrees of horror, from outright slavery and genocide, through systemic racism, down to economic displacement of communities due to gentrification. However, they all spring from the same immoral motives, and anti-fascists like myself will fight it in all its forms as long as we have breath to take.

hayduke

“calling out tribal behavior pre-contact as if it somehow justifies the loss of most aboriginal title is offensive.”

I think you misunderstand my point, ana. I wasn’t using pre-contact behavior to justify their treatment I don’t justify their treatment at all, then our now. I was simply mocking TJ for holding them up as Noble Savages. And while he may have simply been doing so to make his passive aggressive point about “entitlement,” it still comes off as patronizing and using race as a wedge and cover justify an agenda. Much like Bryan uses black people.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

OK…

TJ

Of course it’s patronizing. I intentionally made the argument patronizing as a way to reflect how most of the anti-HALA arguments are patronizing. Why are we trying to protect the life style of some people who just happened to move here a decade or two ago? It’s not like that lifestyle is of some special value that needs to be preserved. You can see people with exactly the same life everywhere in the US. Yes, there is a racial wedge, but I am pretty sure most Seattle people being pretty liberal would agree that upper middle class white people lifestyle is the one that least need preserving.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

“Why are we trying to protect the life style of some people who just happened to move here a decade or two ago?” “it’s not like that lifestyle is of some special value that needs to be preserved.”

Let’s see, here’s some examples of people who “just happened” to move there first: Native North Americans starting c.1495 (including in Western Washington starting c. 1855); Native Meso-americans in 1500s; South African Bushmen from 1652 until about the present; Hawaiians in the late 1800s; Palestinians in early 1900s up to today. You are basically saying imperialism is OK because the replacing culture is “superior.” And what a judgmental (and arrogant) thing to say about no “special value.”

“upper middle class white people lifestyle is the one that least need preserving”

How about “lower middle class” white people? How about “lower class” generally, or POC? All these demographics have been and will continue to be displaced by land use decision making in Seattle.

[edit: Or are you being sarcastic? And BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, the real “upper middle class” and higher demographics are the ones *least likely* to be displaced by MHA up zones. Duh.]

KatCat7

I never knew South African Bushmen or Palestinians settled in Wallingford.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

Ever hear the words “example” or “analogy”? How about “snotty” or “irrelevant”?

KatCat7

How about “sense of humor”?

anotherneighborhoodactivist

Good answer. Sometimes difficult to find when getting sniped at constantly…

donn

[Hard to take this exchange seriously, but …] I don’t often see anyone exactly making an argument that someone’s lifestyle ought to be preserved. The pattern of density and uses in Wallingford seem very near ideal to me, for our type of community, and I’ll do what I can in defense of that, but it doesn’t determine anyone’s lifestyle as I understand it, nor culture.

KatCat7

“The pattern of density and uses in Wallingford seem very near ideal to me, for our type of community, …”

That’s one opinion.

“… but it doesn’t determine anyone’s lifestyle as I understand it, nor culture.”

It does, that’s why you care so much.

donn

No, I think you must be misusing the term. Think of the adjectives – healthy lifestyle, decadent, frugal, etc. “Interests, opinions, behaviours, and behavioural orientations.” I could be a penitent ascetic who eats only millet biscuits, a ’70s hippy who makes pottery, a hipster who spends too much money on too small clothing … nothing to do with living on a street with trees, well made old houses, etc.

KatCat7

Lifestyle is literally how we live our lives.

disqus_XkAiTLVaxe

if you owned your own home here you’d be singing a different tune, period. you make no sense and no corporation or law should force people who own their own home to sell it or forfeit what they have worked so hard to have to some developer in bed with the local government

TJ

But I do own a home here. I saw my house price jumped by 100% in about five years, and I don’t see me personally contributing enough to justify that wealth gain.

Why would you feel a need to “justify” an increase in your home’s equity? Do you feel guilty and have a need to justify any financial gain you might get that’s not from a paycheck, like investing in a good stock? And I’ll point out, as I have many times before, that that equity increase means nothing unless you actually sell your house, and most of us here bought our homes to actually live in, not as an investment. You don’t get dividends from your house, just ever higher property tax bills. And of course there’s the cost of maintenance and risk as well.

So do I feel guilty for my house doubling 100%? Not at all.

TJ

But that’s because your values are way more conservative than mine.

hayduke

So I should feel guilty for my increased equity because I can’t “justify” all of that wealth gain? Do you feel guilty if you take a risk and buy a stock that goes up in value, because you didn’t personally contribute to justify that wealth gain?

I had an older neighbor who bought his house decades ago and he sold two years ago because he wanted no part of the development that HALA would bring to the neighborhood. So he sold his home (happily a nice family bought it) and made a tidy profit off it, which he needs to retire in comfort.

He should feel guilty for looking out for his own well being?

TJ

By my value, yes. Not saying you should have my value, but my value system shouldn’t be so hard to understand. Maybe if you understand the value system of people like me better, you’d realize what you are against isn’t something evil, but just something different. And it should be obvious to you that why by my value system I considered many of your arguments just sense of entitlement.

hayduke

“Entitlement?” My neighbor and I and everyone else whose house value increases aren’t entitled to have our homes value increase. But if it does, we’re certainly entitled to keep it. because we’re the ones who bought it. Just like it’s our loss if it loses value, it’s our gain if it gains value. Equity belongs to the home or condo owner. Not to you, not to the city council, and not to the socialists who tell us that everything needs to be “equal.” If anyone’s entitled, it’s those who think they’re entitled to steal someone else’s money, just to make things fair and “equitable.” That’s not a value you should proud of.

By the way, I’m just trying to understand your values better. So tell me, do you also believe that everyone should be paid the same as everyone else, regardless of the job they do? And what if some work less hours than others? I, for one believe that people should be paid for the value they bring to a business. Or is that “entitlement” as well?

Gracie1705

“African American’s had no say on what happened in their neighborhoods.” Correct, they were pushed out and displaced by urbanists, developers, realtors, bankers and their city hall lackeys. The same folks trying to eliminate SFZ in Wallingford and the same folks who were at the table for the HALA “inclusionary housing” plan.

TJ

No, they were pushed out because there weren’t enough housing stock. And the reason for not enough housing stock surely isn’t due to urbanists, developers, realtors, or bankers.

Song Woman

I agree with you–why don’t we start with the low-hanging fruit, foreign investors who find Seattle “cheap”. Like you, I resent the implication that people who bought decades ago, when there was no demand for these properties, didn’t take out equity for “stuff” & now either want to live in peace or sell, are seen as “racist, classist & greedy” people who are plotting to keep all racial/sexual/ethnic/poor people out. Many if not most of these people bought when prices were low & have worked on middle class incomes for many decades–and made many tradeoffs to do so. I myself owned a townhome in the hood. I bought in this area in the days when no one wanted them, the street wasn’t even paved, & I lived there for 24 years. It was fine for the decades I lived there & went to work every single day. This year, I retired & sold the damn thing for much more than I paid. I also put plenty of sweat equity & contractor $ into making it a place that’s updated & desirable. So in what way is that “greedy”. I put it on the market for a very fair price, would-be owners bid it up. In what way is that wrong? I’m curious.

MudBaby

Many homeowners who bought houses back in the day when “normal” people could afford to buy a house view their homes as refuges from greedy landlords. Yes, property taxes go up with assessed valuations, but not nearly at the rate rent is being jacked up.

snelsen

Now THAT is a good reply.

Susanna

No one is scheming to keep poorer people out of the neighborhood. There is plenty of development capacity in Wallingford to build a lot more apartments with current zoning. And let’s not forget that 25% of single family homes are rentals. Splitting a SF home among roommates is actually the cheapest rent in town.

My SF block includes people who work in retail and restaurants, teachers, professionals and retirees, it includes homeowners and renters and about 40% of the people on my block are also minorities (including my own family). I live on a mixed income, mixed race, even mixed age block. And (gasp) it is a lovely, tree lined, single family zoned block in Wallingford.

“Change all low-rise L2-L3 zones to Family Housing zones with the same density and
height requirements but with goal of encouraging family type units in these zones…As a buffer between Single-Family and midrise NC and Commercial zones, this zoning
would allow stacked 3+ bedroom apartments or row houses. …It would be a major step forward in making Seattle more family-friendly. ”

So if zoning that llowes stacked 3+ bedroom apartments or row houses to less 3,159 acres of city land (all the multi-family zoning, per the comp plan), then wouldn’t keeping the same height and density requirements but allowing them in more than 5X as much – the 18,818 acres zoned single family – but a “super duper ginormously huge step forward in making Seattle more family friendly?”

Splitting an apartment among roommates is much cheaper than splitting a SF home, but even that option is getting expensive nowadays.

Having racial diversity is easy but misleading. There are no lack of East- and South- Asian techies that are buying into the neighborhood. And having mixed-income on the street is just a legacy not something sustainable: the last three houses sold around me are all over a million, and I am sure none of the newcomers are poor. People with modest income in the neighborhood are all here from some time ago, and they will not get replaced by people of similar means when they move away.

If you enjoy a mixed income neighborhood, you have to advocate building up NOW, or it’d be gone fast.

hayduke

“It’s kind of like there are no wedge between African Americans and newcomers in Central anymore, because African Americans are already all forced to move to Kent.”

Let me get this straight: For the last decade, the CD (I used to live there) has seen unbelievable growth in expensive, boxy multistory condos and townhomes that are populated by those privileged rich white people you guys are always railing about. How did all that wonderful density you’ve been advocating for work out for the POC who used to live there?

Oh, but it’s the fault of the anti-HALA crowd. Riiiiight. The death of what we knew as the CD was a direct result of the polices you guys are trying to shove down the throats of the rest of the city. Own it.

TJ

Because the density growth is not enough. It’s actually that simple. By no mean is Central dense if you compare it to similar-sized cities around the world.

hayduke

“Because the density growth is not enough.”

Yes, I’m sure if you go ask the few remaining families who are POC they’ll say, “Yes, TJ, give us even more growth to save the CD and make it affordable again!”

TJ

You are getting the problem wrong. Growth came first -> housing shortage -> housing price up -> more build up. Growth is not caused by the build up. Build up is caused by growth. And the build up was too slow and too little to catch up with growth, therefore some people have to move away. Affordability can be maintained if the housing unit increase is on pace with growth. That’s why Tokyo housing price is so stable despite growth, while San Francisco and now Seattle housing price are high.

Predates HALA. But folks who prevented it from being legal to subdivide and sell a part of a lot by right – so lower income homeowners could sell the main house and downsize to something smaller on the same amount of land, sell a piece of land thereby making some money and lowering their tax bills while remaining in place should definitely own it.

Susanna

Ask the long term residents of the Central District if they want more density. Ask the residents of the International District. They are saying the same things we are.

Of course I have no doubt many many people want status quo. Many people want to stay young forever. The problem isn’t with what people want. The problem is people with entitlements thinking they should get what they want. With so many changes in the city, there is just no way for keeping the status quo. If we insist status quo is a virtue, that just means we are favoring the rich: the richer the neighborhood is, the more means for them to force the status quo, therefore pushing the changes to the poorer neighborhoods.

Realistically, if we re-plan the city from scratch, there would have been no way that Wallingford isn’t a higher density area than Ballard simply because of its central location. It’s just there is enough money around this place to resist the change.

Berta

TJ” Right now in Wallingford you got mostly million dollar house owners and $2500 a month renters,.” Evidence or just more of your exaggeration?

Just go to Zillow…to be fair in our part of Wallingford there are a decent number of $800k-$900k SFHs.

But the real kicker is that the most affordable (tho still expensive) SFHs are miles away from “Single Family 5,000 zoning.” They are basically the equivalent of cottage housing and the size of 2BR apartments – cheapest ones I can find:

So where in all of this come the rules/regulations/laws which donot allow certain kinds of rentals from homeowners to someone in their basement or in a remodeled garage/ I know of 2 situations where the rentor was made to leave and the owner was reported to some city dept for somehting out of rules/regs.. etc. What about loosening those requirements? Owners could have more money; some few more places for rentors ( lower cost)?

Gen McCoy

You need to look up the regs here. I don’t know of any ordinance restricting homeowners from renting out part of their homes, at least any that are enforced. This has been going on all over the city in SF neighborhoods for decades.

Marleys Ghost

Wow, TJ and Bryan, that seems a pretty insensitive point of view…

The fact that new, well-paid arrivals to our fair city are willing and able to overbid on homes in Wallingford is not due to the folks that currently live here. Yes, I suppose we could convert all of the older, smaller, most affordable SF homes to apartments for folks to rent, ad infinitum, but studies have shown that most folks (85%) ultimately wish to own their home. Understand that a further reduction in the number of SF homes will only exacerbate the price of the remaining homes for those that wish to ultimately purchase a home.

HALA does little to incentivize more affordable ownership or to create family-size housing. Most agree that the result of HALA will be an increase in corporate ownership of tiny rental units, making residents of Wallingford (and the city) hostage to the vagaries of distant landlords and endless rent hikes. Most would agree that this approach will not make things more affordable, just more profitable for developers.

As Susanna notes, there is currently substantial development capacity along 45th and in the transition blocks on both sides of 45th, Stone Way, and Wallingford to accommodate anticipated growth three to five times over. You will have to ask the commercial property owners why these properties are underdeveloped. It is simply not yet necessary to allow developers to move deep into our tree-lined streets with massive rental projects until we have done a better job at approaching current capacity under current zoning. The HALA proposals would allow huge projects everywhere in the Wallingford Urban Village like that proposed for 46th Street, where a SF home is being replaced with an 18-unit apodment building – these are NOT duplexes or triplexes that are being built!

It is entirely possible for the City to embark on infill OWNERSHIP housing in the SF zones that is sensitive to the existing neighborhood, to our open space, to our tree canopy, to our yards and to our “front-porch” neighborhood quality. However, the powers-that-be downtown are pursuing policy to favor corporate landlords (follow the money!) and that will allow massive profit implicit in tiny apodments that are not family-friendly and that will destroy the most affordable housing that remains.

Duplexes and triplexes will only get built on land zoned for single family massing; otherwise they can’t compete economically (the same reason single family houses aren’t built on land zoned for 20 story apartment buildings even though they are completely legal)

“but studies have shown that most folks (85%) ultimately wish to own their home.”

My mom really really wanted us to own our own home when we were kids…but unless someone was willing to “give her a lot of money we didn’t have,” that wasn’t an option, and single family zoning would simply have made living where we did impossible

“Understand that a further reduction in the number of SF homes will only exacerbate the price of the remaining homes for those that wish to ultimately purchase a home.”

Wallyhood posted a story about a derelict tear down that sold for $720k. I think that ship has sailed for folks who aren’t already affluent.

PaulC

Welcoming Wallingford is hosting a City Council Candidate Forum tonight (Sept 14), and Housing is on the agenda.
Date & Time: September 14, from 7:30-9:30 pm
Location: Wallingford Presbyterian Church, 1414 N 42nd St.

…
At the time the neighborhood was run down and polluted from the former gasworks so developers were snapping up Wallingford’s old bungalows and turning them into duplexes for Teamsters and University of Washington students. Wallingford’s homeowners complained to the City of Seattle. Mike Ruby worked for the Building Department at the time. “Basically they came saying ‘we’ve got this serious problem with developers coming in and disrupting our neighborhood.’”

Ruby told them,”if you want to make changes in your neighborhood, this is what you need to do.”

The interview on the web site says “Developers were snapping up Wallingford’s old bungalows and turning them into duplexes for University of Washington students.” Where did “Teamsters” come from? And if that was said, what’s the factual basis for the claim. (For students at UW is obvious due to proximity; Teamsters not so much.)

Listen to the audio. The full text is not reflected in the text on the page.

(And is lobbying to ban duplexes to keep out students somehow any better than to keep out laborers, in any event?)

margie74

If you weren’t so wedded to your “evil homeowners” script, you might realize that your perception of this is doesn’t make any sense. Duplexes for union members? – Wallingford was cheap then – mid 70’s a Metro driver and his wife bought the entire house next door – a Longshoreman lives across the street and has been there longer than I have. Duplexes for students, maybe, would have been relatively expensive student housing. It’s interesting that you can only see it as “keeping someone out”. Subdividing houses into duplexes or whatever can also produce substandard housing, firetraps, and etc. if done by people in a hurry for a quick buck. Also could have been issues with absentee landlords.

There was no law at that time that restricted the number of unrelated people in a house, so there was nothing to keep a group of students from renting a house in Wallingford – and that’s how I moved into the neighborhood.

In addition, there are a number of duplexes in my SF neighborhood between 45th and 40th. They have been there for some time. I just don’t see this neighborhood as being exclusive, unless you’re trying to build a new house or remodel an old one. It defies history to think that the exclusion is anything other than financial now, in the majority of cases. I’m not sure there ever were any restrictive covenants here — redlining, yes. But this is a capitalist economy, whether we like it or not, and the guys with the bucks will always have the upper hand and get what they want without government restrictions.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

The reporting is thin. I would need to know what exactly was being proposed and the specific existing zoning. I agree with margie; you are so focused on “exclusion” that you can’t see anything else. And as has been pointed out so many times it’s “ad nauseum” by now, adding more units of market rate housing does not produce affordable housing for students or anyone else.

Thanks for stating that. I wasn’t (mostly) trying to be offensive but I was miffed that you were suggesting the burden of proof lay on me for no reason. The fact that you have a reason beyond “I don’t want to believe it” is fair enough and knowing this I apologize if I did get snarky.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

No problem, I get snarky myself. I’m digging now to find W’ford zoning changes that might be the ones Slater and Ruby are referencing.

Basic fact is your past argument is accurate that zoning did have areas that allowed duplex and that some were down zoned. This fact is part of the bigger picture that Seattle was intentionally over zoned for a million people in the1920s. And that’s for the smaller footprint of Seattle (i.e., nothing north of 85th). Downzones occurred periodically when development pressure threatened the currently built out community and there was political pressure to make it happen. I’m aware of it happening in Fremont on a few blocks during the zoning fights of the 1980s; if a block met the zoning code’s locational criteria for SF (i.e., was still primarily SF in use), the zoning was changed to match the current use upon petition by the people on that block. I don’t recall the political details.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

I finally actually got to it, and my first search at clerk got a very likely hit:

============
Council Bill Number: 97827
Ordinance Number: 105937

AN ORDINANCE relating to and amending plats 22E and 23W, pages 76 and 77, of the Official Zoning Map of The City of Seattle (Ordinance 86300), to rezone certain property in the lower Wallingford Neighborhood (in Blocks 31, 32, 48, 54 through 58 inclusive, 65 and 66, Lake Union Addition, in Blocks 1 and 2 in Bagley’s Addition, and in Blocks 12, 13, 16 and 17, Washington Addition) from duplex residence high density (RD 5000) zone to single family residence high density (RS 5000) zone (Petition of Wallingford Community Council, C.F. 279734, Hearing Examiner No. X-74-204).

Thanks for looking this up. This is why I criticize what seems to have taken place:

In another post, you say ” Downzones occurred periodically whenever development pressure threatened the currently built out community”

Since we’re talking about residential zonining here (not commercial), I don’t see it as “developer pressure.” I see it as “other human beings wanting to live here.”

I believe we shouldn’t be trying to stop people living where they want in general, but especially today when it’s “because this land is near jobs.”

anotherneighborhoodactivist

“other human beings wanting to live here.”

The people who aren’t living in new or proposed housing are almost never “wanting” it in that specific location. How could they? The specific location targeted for up zones is what developers (and planners) want for whatever reason (low cost of land, high potential ROI, hopefully meet some decent planning criteria). The process of picking places to increase capacity is NOT based on site specific desires by potential new residents.

Remember, we have plenty of capacity under existing zoning. Most up zones occur in response to pressure from capital, not from potential residents. The addition of the MHA (“affordability”) is a legitimate way to obtain at least some affordable housing, but as implemented (lack of measures to prevent destruction or require replacement of existing affordable housing, tiny percentage fee, not actually inclusionary, very little voice by the current community, little to no concurrency of infrastructure—many impacts externalized, and crappy design review and resource conservation—trees gone!) it sucks.

“Stopping people living where they want in general” ignores that everyone can’t live everywhere. It’s a fantasy of growth obsessed urbanism, and a fraud used by capital to divide us from our progressive commonality.

hayduke

I think a fair question to be asked is, while plenty of people might “want” to live in a certain neighborhood, do people actually have a “right” to live in any neighborhood they desire, regardless of their ability to pay for it?

I’d really like to live Deer Valley in a condo at the base of the hill so I can easily walk to the chairlift, but I can’t afford that. But do I actually have a right to live there?

anotherneighborhoodactivist

There is a limit to the number of people (or other thing) who can be in one place at the same time. The failure of our society to understand and act on limits is one of the reasons we are in such political, economic, and environmental turmoil. It’s basic physics.

hayduke

I agree with you on physical limits. However, my question is about challenging a premise that is central to YIMBY ideology. Namely, their insistence that society is obligated to find a way for anyone, of any means, to live wherever they want. No one ever dares to challenge the YIMBY’s on that. And every time I’ve asked them, they never offer a direct answer to justify that belief. And that, of course, gives them YIMBY’s and city government the false impression that there’s universal agreement that people are entitled to live wherever they please.

“The people who aren’t living in new or proposed housing are almost never “wanting” it in that specific location. How could they? ”

Because it’s near good jobs.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

There are many places “near good jobs” including many areas with existing and potential multi-family buildings. “Near” is not site specific.

Marleys Ghost

However, Bryan, HALA is not proposing duplexes or 3-flats. I am a particular fan of flat arrangements as they CAN be built more family-friendly and age-in-place-friendly, unlike vertical townhouses. I simply do not understand your argument as it does not reflect what HALA will create.

The proposal on the table from HALA would allow 18-unit apodment buildings with zero parking on a single parcel currently zoned SF in Wallingford (which is usually about 4000 sq ft, despite the SF5000 label). If you are supporting HALA, you are NOT supporting duplex or 3-flat construction.

Again, it is entirely feasible to build duplex and triplex homes that blend in perfectly with existing SF properties, by holding to the same setbacks, massing, heights, and lot coverage as adjacent parcels, protecting our trees, open space, and lovely gardens.. but HALA and its proponents elected instead to strive to incentivize massive, highly profitable developer plays that create huge adverse impacts and that will completely destroy the fabric of features that attracted most of us to move here in the first place.

Exactly whom do you believe that our City Council is representing with such proposals? ‘Tain’t me! ‘Tain’t you! ‘Tain’t anyone wishing to accommodate density in a reasonable manner without huge adverse impacts!
Follow the money!

HALA Committee recommendation SF2 would have allowed exacty what you say you like.

It was dropped because single family zoning advocates complained.

(I personally think that was the most important part of HALA, which I support becaue it is way better than nothing, but in my opinion allowing multi-family housing at single family massing everywhere is essntial.)

“The proposal on the table from HALA would allow 18-unit apodment buildings with zero parking on a single parcel currently zoned SF in Wallingford ”

Great!

Gen McCoy

Good research.

Gen McCoy

Anyone who wanted to take the time could look up past ordinances, or city council meetings. They may be available online. If you go to a library you can also access the archive of the Seattle Times by keyword search.

Ben w

This goes nowhere because it’s an argument, not a conversation. Too much opinion, not enough listening; on all sides.

Donn

Not enough listening where it counts, that’s for sure. City hall has turned a deaf ear.

Your apples and oranges metaphor is pretty either:or. There’s lots of us who are bananas, pineapples and many others than just “believe that change will make the neighborhood better for everyone.” and “believe that change will make the neighborhood worse for most people. They believe that all change has negative side effects.”

Who wants to engage in such a binary narrative? Do you really view the world through such polarized glasses?

Unfortunately, all I have seen in discussions on this site is polarized points of view. I would love to see more options here, more bananas. I would really love to see people engaging in a discussion, with people acknowledging each other’s ideas and concerns, instead of scoring points. So far all I have seen here is apples and oranges.

Donn

We’re up against a city hall planning initiative that will have irreversible consequences for the neighborhood. That’s going down real soon, and there’s no reason so far to believe that anything short of armed insurrection will stop it. People are frustrated and angry. But sure, let’s talk about bananas.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

Why did you edit your comment to remove the link to the very article (written by you) that I was responding to? You introduced that piece with My thoughts about to the ongoing debate about the City of Seattle’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) plans which is taking place on the Wallyhood Blog and through the neighborhood of Wallingford. Grammar typos notwithstanding, it’s a fair statement to make. You criticize the universally polarized points of view you find her, but won’t engage when I call you on it. Stand by your position or please don’t post. Dialogue (“fruit salad”) takes at least two.

You repeat again, “all I have seen in discussions on this site is polarized points of view.” I don’t think you’re looking very hard. Many of us “oranges” who you claim “believe that change will make the neighborhood worse for most people” agree that more housing is needed. However, the nuance you totally ignore is that more market rate housing will not accomplish the apple goal you claim to stand for—”change will make the neighborhood better for everyone.”

Life doesn’t work that way. How about these bananas: Gentrification and displacement is not separable from the problems of systemic inequity and racism and deficient democratic empowerment regarding the decisions that affect all of us where we live. More market rate housing will not solve affordability or homelessness. You cannot solve a demand side problem (up zones to create huge job growth) with supply side solutions.

Everyone: Please remember that we are not arguing about “HALA”; we are arguing (mostly) about a single specific measure proposed in the HALA report, recommendation R1, “Mandatory Inclusionary Housing.” In the course of the political sausage making (the Grand Bargain) the “inclusionary” had to be dropped because the fees to be charged were too low to actually make “inclusion” work. IOW, it is not accurate to say you are “for” or “against” HALA; we are for or against the specific piece of sausage that the political establishment ground out and is trying to force us all to eat. feh, it’s a rotten piece of bad policy that will not accomplish its claimed goals, and instead will further exacerbate the gentrification and displacement running rampant in Seattle and many other places.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I delighted for you that you don’t find more positive here than I do.

I originally wrote that article here but I was marked as spam. I reposted it on Medium. After I linked to that article I decided to remove it because I didn’t want the editors here to think I was just using this blog to promote my article.

On a side note, I do find it very frustrating that several people in these comments need to point out people’s spelling and grammar mistakes. None of us can write perfectly. To me it is unnecessary to embarrass people in this way. I think the polite thing to do is let these errors slide.

> Stand by your position or please don’t post.
You’re right. I don’t want to go toe-to-toe arguing with people. I am removing the article and will no longer post here.

anotherneighborhoodactivist

Unfortunately, we have an individualistic oriented culture (some would say that fact is related to having capitalism as the basis for our political economy for about 500 years). I would far prefer to live in a more communal oriented culture, and I have spend my entire adult life working toward that. The upshot is that until we move from the former to the latter (chances of that?) very little gets changed without “going toe-to-toe arguing with people.” Be thankful we haven’t descended to civil war. Again. Yet.

So, how is Seattle livable when it is scary to get out of your car in the QFC parking lot early mornings because there is a likely homeless person hiding items in the shrubs and 2 possibbly homeless people ( there every day) at the end of the lot and another in front of the store and I just want to park my car and get out alone/ How is Seattle livable when there is a drunk ranting on the sidewalk at 5:45 PM on Stone Way N a block north of the yoga studio. Then havign to walk back by him in dark at 7 PM. How is Seattle livable when there ae so many squatters up on Whitman N between 43 & 44 and ongoing “activity” neighbors are bothered by?

Baby llama drama

“Actually only about 18,000 of Seattle’s 53,490 acres are zoned single-family, so the Urbanist’s propaganda that it’s “the majority” or even over 60% is seriously wrong. Because mid-rise multifamily zoning has 8 to 10 times the capacity of single-family uses, there is already plenty of capacity for all the growth that’s planned. In fact, someone calculated thhat we could accommodate all that growth if we just upzoned all of Aurora from Denny to N. 145th to 7-story pedestrian-friendly neighborhood commercial.

“So the HALA is not motivated by accommodating growth, but by adding more height where developers want it. The Grand Bargain presents this added height as a trade for affordability, but now it appears that the developers will decline to include any of the workforce housing renting for around $1,000 to individuals making up to about $20/hr. Instead, developers plan to pay a (very low) fee in lieu of inclusion. The city says these funds will go for low-income housing, leveraged 3:1. That’s 75% mostly our tax money, including federal tax credits, the State Housing Trust Fund, HUD Sec. 8 and veteran’s vouchers and the (overcommitted) Seattle Housing Levy. It will take another four+ years for these grants to be awarded, the funds assembled, and construction to occur. Land costs are a huge issue, so nonprofits will look for cheaper land.

“The HALA is anti-family. The developers are refusing to build any 3-bedroom rental units, so renting older single-family homes are the only option for larger, immigrant extended families. Over 20% of single-family homes are rented, so upzoning puts a target on their backs and limits affordability when they are displaced by $700,000 townhouses. Other than Habitat-type sweat equity, there is no such thing in Seattle as an “affordable home purchase. Unfortunately, the Condo Liability Act has killed off middle-class condo construction. It should be rebalance, and should be in the city’s 2018 Legislative Agenda”

Wallyhood is dedicated to fostering community and communication in the Wallingford neighborhood. A group of volunteer editors rotate the responsibility of managing the site, and we welcome stories from all our neighbors.

This week’s editor is ​Jack McLaughlin. You can contact the editor-of-the-week at [email protected].

Subscribe

Get a daily summary of articles and forum conversations delivered to your email inbox.